losing streaks

Kasi · Sep 30, 2009

kewljason said:

Hi KewlJ
Very sorry to hear about an extended losing streak.

First of all, I can't relate to X units lost in Y hours. It's completely meaningless to me. I only ever cared about how many standard deviations a loss was from EV after so long. How many SD's does your extended losing streak represent from expected by itself and how does that fit in to your lifetime SD from expected?

Probably not what you're looking for but, in case it makes you feel better in any way, the only thing I have is that after 8000 or so internet hands at a particular place in a particular game I was over 3.7 SD down if I remember right. (Had I flat-bet which I didn't lol.) Unfortunately, I might add lol. It may have been closer to 3.9 - I'd have to look it up lol. By far, the worst extended streak of bad luck I happened to have experienced.

In real life, I actually did not flat-bet but kept track of stuff as if I had lol.
It was the neg EV internet and I felt compelled to keep track of voodoo vs expected lol.

Anyway, as I recall, 40000 hands or so later, at the same casino, playing the same game, my neg flat-bet EV was right on the mark lol.

On the other hand, there is another casino I was up almost exactly 3 SD after 72000+ hands in a particular game had I flat-bet every round. Which, of course, I didn't actually do. Fortunately, in this case, I might add lol.

I would hope I might have more discipline if I ever chose to bet in a +EV game lol. No need for voodoo there lol.

Not sure what my point is either except that extended winning and losing streaks can and will happen if one plays long enough. Perfect play, while assumed, has no influence on Lady Luck. I actually enjoyed her ravages, never knowing what to expect, whether I'd be whipped or ass-kissed lol.

Just try to put every session's results into a SD perspective and also include each session into a lifetime SD perspective.

I think you already do that from what I can tell lol.

I find it equally interesting though just how both crappy and great things can be after 10000 to 70000 hands, don't you think lol?

Edited to add - how bout them Bengals lmao?

BMDD · Sep 30, 2009

I'm down 326 units after losing 12 of 16 sessions in the last month. The fluctuations can be very tough to work through, especially while trying to build a bank.

Hope it turns around soon for both of us kewlj!

BillytheBJkid · Oct 2, 2009

kewljason said:

How much is a unit?? $5? how do you guys know how many hands you have played. I am sure you are not counting hands. Is this 25,000 just an estimate?

How can you lose so much money for so long if you are doing everthing wright? Do you think your counting is not as good as you think it is? I can understand playing a few hours and losing, but 280 hours is like 7 weeks of full time. Shouldn't you be ahead after all that time?

no_fear · Oct 2, 2009

Billy:

The unit size depends on the bankroll. I may have a $5 unit whereas someone else may have a $100 unit.

And yes it is an estimate - the people base it on the amount of hours played and average hands per hour

bj21abc · Oct 2, 2009

From the numbers I guess a unit is $25.

The main point was made by Kasi above - the only numbers that have some meaning are how many SDs separate you from EV. This can be a huge pain to estimate if your playing conditions change, but you can always make a good guesstimate.

If you're the poor sap who's 3+ SD's away from EV, you should be taking an extremely close look at what you're doing - but you could just be unlucky. We tend to forget that yes, it happens to only 1 out of 1,000+, but there is no guarantee you're not the one. Black swans etc....

D.

(naturally, as during any losing streak, multiple 10-splitting soft 17-standing 13-doubling ploppies will walk away from your tables laden with chips, several SD's over on the other side )

BillytheBJkid · Oct 2, 2009

bj21abc said:

From the numbers I guess a unit is $25.

The main point was made by Kasi above - the only numbers that have some meaning are how many SDs separate you from EV. This can be a huge pain to estimate if your playing conditions change, but you can always make a good guesstimate.

If you're the poor sap who's 3+ SD's away from EV, you should be taking an extremely close look at what you're doing - but you could just be unlucky. We tend to forget that yes, it happens to only 1 out of 1,000+, but there is no guarantee you're not the one. Black swans etc....

D.

(naturally, as during any losing streak, multiple 10-splitting soft 17-standing 13-doubling ploppies will walk away from your tables laden with chips, several SD's over on the other side )

yes, I did figure out the 25 dollar unit thing. 7000/280 =25. Now what about doubling a 13? why would anyone do that at any count? or are you talking A2?

BillytheBJkid · Oct 3, 2009

kewljason said:

so $7000 dived by 276 units, looks like your unit is $25, right. If you have lost 276 units over 280 hours, thats a loss of $25 an hour for 280 hours, dude. I think you need to rethink this. You must not be doing something right.

Dopple · Oct 3, 2009

He knows how to play. He will come be with a vengance. His good swings should be better than his bad swings over time.

Kasi · Oct 3, 2009

BillytheBJkid said:

Thanks bj21abc - you grasped my point with all its implications exactly.

Billy, just by way of example, and saying nothing about how kewlj may actually be playing, in what game, with what depth, with what rules, with what counting system, with what indexes if any, with what style of play etc

assume one is playing-all a 6/8 8D S17 DAS with Hi-Lo and indexes spreading 1-8. Losing 276 units in 25000 hands would be less than 1 SD from expected and not even count as anything more than to be completely expected since it is within 1 SD. If he happened to be spreading 1-12 or 1-16, his results would be even more within 1 SD. If his estimate of 25000 hands played was off and he only played, say, 20000 hands, then his results would be a little more than 1 SD from expected.

Like a guy playing the game above suffering a 3SD loss would be down 1250 units ($31,250) in 25000 hands.

Just trying to put in perspective how, while thinking such a streak might be "really" bad luck, it may also not be as "bad" as you think.

The key is in determining just how "bad" one's luck is (chances of it occuring over a specified time) actually is for the game(s) one may be playing.

The good news is one doesn't have to wait 25000 hands to determine this as one can determine at each and every point along the way the lilklihood of one's "luck" having occurred at that cumulative point in time or, indeed, why not even after each and every results for that day.

So, it's up to kewlj to determine as best he can just how "bad" this streak is for the game(s) he is actually playing.

My numbers are based on Don's table 10.9 in BJAIII just as an example.

BillytheBJkid · Oct 3, 2009

please. what is SD? I thought it meant single deck, but that doesn't seem to make sense.

Canceler · Oct 3, 2009

BillytheBJkid said:

You have to look at the context. It could be South Dakota, San Diego, or single deck, but in this case it stands for standard deviation.

RJT · Oct 3, 2009

Jack_Black said:

It really doesn't make any difference how good the quality of the games you play are, or the size of your spread - if all you are doing is counting cards at blackjack then it is statistically impossible to guarentee that you'll be ahead after one hour of play.
As pointed out by previous posters to even approach this sort of result you would need an advantage in the mid double digits and if you really had run the sims like you said (or understood the results) you'd know how ridiculous a statement about having a positive result in only an hour is.

RJT.

BillytheBJkid · Oct 5, 2009

kewljason said:

Dude, if you want to turn things around you should play more at the trump mahal. I have played there 5 times now and have won 4 of those times. The conditions are really good and they have $10 tables.

StandardDeviant · Oct 5, 2009

RJT said:

It is statistically impossible to guarantee that you'll be ahead after any number of hours of play...and as Mickey Rosa might have said, "Don't call me dude."

StandardDeviant · Oct 5, 2009

BillytheBJkid said:

I am headed there now...:grin:

psyduck · Oct 5, 2009

StandardDeviant said:

Are you sure? Again, I am no expert, but I think it is possible, at least statistically.

StandardDeviant · Oct 5, 2009

psyduck said:

The thing about standard deviation is that there will always be some probability, however small, that some unfortunate soul will experience a net losing string no matter how long he or she may play. The odds get smaller and smaller, the more one plays, but the probability that one will not be a net loser never goes to 0.

So...if by "guarantee" we mean "to say with 100% certainty" that someone will be ahead after X hours of play, then we can never guarantee. We can say "it is highly likely" but "highly likely" and "certain" are not the same thing.

This may seem abstract, and to some extent it is, but the world surprizes us now and again with events that are way out on the standard deviation curve.

Thunder · Oct 5, 2009

StandardDeviant said:

I disagree. There are better games in AC than the 8 deck albatross at the Taj.

kewljason · Oct 5, 2009

BillytheBJkid said:

I do play some at the Taj, Billy. But mainly because it is my home base and they comp me well. The games at the Taj are very mediocre. Especially at the $10 tables that you are playing, where the games are hit17. The $25 tablea and up are slightly better rules with S17, but it really is about penetration and the Taj is very average at best. about 75%. sometimes can find a dealer doing a bit better. Congrats on your 4 winning sessions out of 5, but you really need to try to understand that this represents the short term, same as my recent downturn does. In the short term almost anything can happen. You must concentrate on longer term results which is when things should begin to even out.

So in answer to you earlier question, 280 hours is still short term and it's not unreasonable to be down after that amount of time. It's just that personally it represents the biggest and longest "dip" in my 6 year results. (incidentally, the past week has been pretty good as I have made back nearly half of the loss that I had endured when I began this post, so am once again headed north. This is exactly why you need a large bankroll to play the 6 and 8 deck games.

Continued sucess to you billy and everyone else as well and thanx to those posts of encouragement.

Dopple · Oct 6, 2009

Congratulations Jason, I knew it would come around for you. I hate to see that happen to a great player like you but now you have just a little more experience. It should come back as good as it went bad.... someday.

losing streaks

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member